FtSoA
13d ago
Fascism can be conceived as the marriage between biological instinct and the State
Whole lot to unpack there, wow.
the #1 most important thing is for your spokespersons to be biologically compelling, ie beautiful and strong
Trump not a fascist confirmed.
There’s a reason why Hitler perfected his voice and gestures and costumes in private, only allowing himself to be seen in select moments indicating strength — even at select times of day and in select lighting!
FDR a fascist confirmed.
Beauty pageants and celebrities in general too, I suppose.
FtSoA
14d ago
All US revenue either comes from taxes or from debt. Neither are unlimited (well - taxes aren't unlimited, the jury might be out on the debt!) At the end of the day, it's all one budget.
That we do not balance.
And for which defense spending is not the biggest area by a long shot these days.
This is not true for the Navy or the Air Force, although perhaps your MOS didn't encounter them much.
Fighting the Houthis is not merely the GWOT. They're affecting freedom of the seas. That's normal shit for the USN to combat.
Also the current conflict with the Houthis and Iran is not really the GWOT anymore now is it? It's not related to contingency ops in Iraq or Afghanistan.
That article makes it pretty clear the B-1 was already had known maintenance issues and was past its service life with or without the GWOT. They had given up their primary purpose of a nuclear bomber well before the GWOT even kicked off. The hardest kind of flying is the low-level kind they do in training, for fun, not combat sorties.
If anything the GWOT made us really get our money's worth out of the platform.
But I'm not sure the 300 MQ-9s we have will be super helpful if the balloon goes up against China.
Having a loitering target in the sky has its uses even against the Chinese.
But yes, we need Anduril to up the standard.
FtSoA
14d ago
Assad picked bad friends. Some of those friends liked to kill Americans and our allies.
The US didn't really put all that much effort into taking out Assad. Turkey did.
You know, a major reason that the Assad regime fell was the combo of both Russia and Iran having to reduce support in order to fight other conflicts.
I get tired of praying for my friends' family members who are in mortal peril due to US policy choices.
Yeah, well, think of all the people in mortal peril due to Russian policy choices. Or Iranian.
Some people pray for US involvement. Consider that their prayers and your prayers cancel out.
If you want to do the moral math, the US comes out looking ok on that front relative to its peers.
FtSoA
14d ago
Every Standard and Patriot missile we launch off in support of Israel and/or Ukraine is one we do not have stockpiled for a fight with China
We need to prime the pump and drastically increase production capacities. Almost certainly, we're better off for having had the stress test.
But you can't pretend like the weapons we are firing off now aren't relevant to a Pacific fight.
The vast majority of them are not. For those that are, we have fucked up by not having sufficient stockpiles or production capacities. Best time to fix that is now.
We have have multiple goals. We're a big country.
I mean - if the US should go full commitment for Ukraine, then by the same token it probably shouldn't screw around at all, we should just give Taiwan nukes. (Frankly, I trust the Taiwanese with them much more than the Ukrainians!)
We do not hand over operational control of nuclear weapons. In 1979, we took our troops out and ended recognition of Taiwan as an independent country.
That's a major reason why it's basically a foregone conclusion that the US won't really put it all on the line to contest it with China.
FtSoA
14d ago
Again, please do not blame the USN's incompetence at program management on the GWOT. That problem predates and outlasts the GWOT.
fighting vehicles, helicopters, tanks and artillery projects
These will almost certainly be irrelevant in a war with China.
$8 trillion
This is a made up number. It includes veteran care. In the future. Separate budget entirely.
fight a 20-year unconventional war and not have it impact your ability to fight a conventional war
Look man. I was in the Army. I spent time in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Do you know who wasn't really doing much fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? The USAF and USN. Their core assets were not affected very much by counterinsurgency operations.
Guess who is the least useful branch in a probable conflict with China? That's right, the US Army. The major exception would be air defense artillery, but they've been deployed across the world before, during, and after the GWOT due to their particular mission set. And boy are they getting a lot of attention of late that might just do them a lot of good such that if China does get frisky in the coming years they'll be better off.
very useful in the GWOT but of dubious utility in a hot war (drones being a big example)
This is a hilarious take since drone bros like Elon take exactly the opposite line you do on drones vs. manned platforms like the B-21. Funnily, the B-21 Wiki has it "maybe" going to replace the B-52 after it replaces the B-1 and B-2. We just don't make 'em like we used to.
Israel just used drones to assist quite a lot in a hot war. For ISR they're incredibly valuable, and that includes against China.
The GWOT was stupid for many reasons. Believe me, I know.
But the DoD's longstanding incompetence wrt major weapon programs, cost overruns, and maintaining an advantage over China can't really be blamed on us occupying Iraq for less than a decade and Afghanistan for about two decades, mostly with a light footprint of Army soldiers in light infantry and mechanized infantry formations. The USN and USAF have a lot of rot and incompetence built up.
FtSoA
14d ago
I think the ROC is a bit more deluded than the PRC at this point, lol. The PRC clearly won the civil war, just didn't quite get the chance to invade Taiwan like they did Hainan and establish 100% control over the map.
But yes, the "unresolved status of Taiwan" is a pleasantly functional fiction.
FtSoA
14d ago
it arguably cost us essentially a generation of modernization as multiple procurement programs were canceled while funds were spent to fighting the GWOT rather than preparing for conventional conflict.
I don't think that's arguable. Go look at the budget and procurement decisions and I doubt you can find that being the causation. And, even if it were, the USN did not do much in Afghanistan.
Please don't blame GWOT expenditures on the inability of the USAF to manage the budget projections of its aircraft development and production. That's been a shitshow for a long time. Ironically, one reason Gates canceled the program at the time was because he was interested in unmanned aircraft development.
https://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53E4KG20090415/
The GWOT is not responsible for DoD development and procurement retardation, because that's been an issue for decades and continues now. Thank god the F-35 does seem to work.
FtSoA
14d ago
I don't want the situation to be the US threatening nuclear escalation because we've lost the conventional war and that's the only ace up our sleeve.
I think we're in agreement here. But I don't think you're understanding how it might play out. If things start with fighting around Taiwan, but then the Chinese hit say Guam. Or Hawaii. Escalations are usually pretty messy. It's not about having to explicitly threaten nuclear escalation. It's the credible implicit threat of using "all means necessary" to preserve Taiwan's independence it tested.
My point is that I don't think we, or the Taiwanese, are going to do this. Or to be perceived as credible by saying it. And, even if we had conventional parity, I doubt the typical US president is going to really go up the escalation ladder. In the Cold War, we had a global contest with the Soviets and were at each others throats in a bunch of places. With China and Taiwan it's not the same dynamic on nearly any level. But like I said, a given US president could be particularly committed.
This is particularly true since if China can occupy Taiwan quickly and successfully,
One nice thing for Taiwan is that it's very unlikely that "quickly" is in the cards, just based on how the island is. I guess there could be some kind of coup situation. What could be established quickly is Chinese battlespace dominance around Taiwan. And then the US would have to decide how much we want to confront that militarily. Ironically sort of a reverse Cuba Missile Crisis situation in terms of blockading an island.
That's why dropping Ukraine and redirecting any aid money to more LRASMs would spook China.
That's just literally not an option. That's not how defense budgets work, mechanically. You can say things like "what if the US redirected all resources for Ukraine and/or Israel to Taiwan" and that's just not actually a thing that could happen. If you want to increase INDOPACOM's warfighting capacities, then great. Me too. But it won't be meaningfully done by taking our support away from Israel and/or Ukraine. It's not like we balance our defense budget.
If signs were that China is going to make a move ASAP, then sure, do what it takes to meet top priorities. But that's not the case.
And, as I've stated, what spooks China more than anything is realizing "oh shit the US really will put skin in the game and isn't just making empty promises."
If the US invests to defending Taiwan at the cost of other admittedly important priorities
You're stuck on a zero-sum view of US defense priorities. On some level that's true, finite world and all that, but Taiwan is not a hot war. We are not permanently committing military assets to either Ukraine or Israel (yet, so long as the Iranians don't provoke us). We can walk and chew bubble gum simultaneously. We can make more munitions. (Nothing is funnier than when people remark that the US won't have enough 155mm artillery shells for China; as if that round would make any difference.) If the US committed to really fucking Russia over by giving Ukraine every edge we could then that's the strongest way to deter China because we are demonstrating capacity, will, and competence.
FtSoA
15d ago
To call Taiwan a "rogue province" is to accept that the People's Republic of China has a claim on it which is being violated by the Republic of China. Obviously the ROC does not accept that.
This is a wonderfully pedantic stance you're taking. The PRC is viewed by everyone, except the ROC, as the One True Chinese Government. The ROC has not tried to formally define itself as a separate country (though some want to). Or give up it's claims to the mainland.
"Get back the full territory" refers to the government of China regaining control of all of Chinese territory following external invasions and civil war. I could choose a slightly different phrasing if the word "back" offends you, but it's a distinction without a difference. It's either a rogue province, or an independent country. Take your pick.
So unless you accept that the ROC is still the legitimate sovereign power of all of China, temporarily embarrassed by only controlling Taiwan, then this is all academic.
FtSoA
15d ago
Fewer deaths overall, and I don't see how it makes Russia so much stronger that U.S. hegemony is threatened (more than it already is).
Focus less on "U.S. hegemony" and more on "Russian domination of its neighbors." Most of the time, successful conquerors like to run up the score, not just find satisfaction.
If the 'norm' for 'support against aggression' is to just pump money and weapons into any force fighting against someone we don't like, I'd be able to offhand point out like half a dozen examples of where we did that and it directly backfired or blew over into unforeseen, possibly worse consequences.
Easy to ignore the counterfactuals of not doing that.
Afghanistan, of course, being one of those, that instantly folded as soon as we removed our presence.
Afghanistan was an ongoing occupation. We had, as you point out, a presence. It has almost nothing in common with our support to Ukraine.
Its a very ill defined way to run things, outside of explicit treaty agreements like NATO. "If the U.S. State Department thinks you're aggressing against your neighbor they will pump said neighbor's combat capabilities up to even out the odds, but otherwise won't intervene" is
Come on. You think the State Department is what matters here??? Also, there are plenty of conflicts where we do not intervene in material ways.
We're STILL not officially at war with Russia, so on the political level, it is genuinely unclear what our true objective for participating in this conflict is
Do you know anything about the Cold War? Were we ever at officially with war with Russia?
The true objective is helping the Ukrainians defend themselves to impose costs on Russia and support the security of the region. Simple.
But if its really such a great moral and strategic goal, its strange that the U.S., with the least to lose in this situation, is the one that is continuing to make the largest investments.
"Largest" "investments"? Of what kind? Have you adjusted for per capita at all?
What's strange is that we and the Europeans didn't give Ukraine way more support way faster. Embarrassing how much it took to convince some countries that actually Russia is a threat.
I guess it depends on which one you view as the 'worse' issue. As stated, I see demographic collapse as likely to trigger more and more conflicts going forward.
I don't think this follows, but it's clearly a self-correcting problem.
FtSoA
15d ago
More of an "Iran-Iraq War" quagmire in terms of style (trenches, not jungle), but yes.
FtSoA
15d ago
and their radar system got disabled by hackers before Israel attacked (surely a unique mistake enabled only by Israel's complete intelligence penetration of it)
Good thing the Russians were not competent at their intelligence preparation of the battlefield.
And still, from what I gather, Israel did not do manned overflights but just launched ATGMs over Iraq.
Think about what you just said. They "just" "launched" "ATGMs." How did that turn out for the IAF? For Iran?
Israel did manned overflights once they had obliterated Iran's air defenses in a matter of hours.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-air-superiority-iran-cannot-compared-russia-ukraine
Iran also had a lot more than merely four S-300 batteries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Defense_Force
FtSoA
15d ago
We can actually help deter China without threatening nuclear war if we have the tools needed to fight a conventional war.
I'm not arguing against the need for better conventional deterrents. But in any real conflict between nuclear powers, the willingness to go all the way up the escalatory ladder has to be symmetrical, or at least perceived as such. Otherwise one side is going to get its way.
If China goes for Taiwan, does the USN put itself in harm's way and fire upon Chinese assets? How do we respond if they sink a ship? Hit a regional base? Will we attack the mainland?
As with economics, the expectations matter almost more than actually what happens. If China thinks we'll back off because we are not fully committed to the fight then they will be emboldened to test our resolve. "Strategic ambiguity" was a clever means of not having a formal commitment but still making sure the Chinese were sufficiently worried to not try anything. I don't think that's going to work much longer. Either we gotta put a tripwire there as we have in South Korea, or it's going to become more and more clear the US will not risk a full confrontation.
For all the scary "brinksmanship" the public watched
The public did not "watch" most of the actually scary part. The JCS told Kennedy we should invade right off the bat. Kennedy later on was convinced it was necessary and preparations were made. Luckily, the Soviets were not willing to go down that path. Shooting down the U-2 or spooking the Soviet submarine (for which a single person stopped the launch of nuclear torpedoes) or any other incident could have set things off.
but from a certain point of view it was a success for the Soviet Union
Per Wikipedia, that's not how the Soviets felt:
The compromise embarrassed Khrushchev and the Soviet Union because the withdrawal of US missiles from Italy and Turkey was a secret deal between Kennedy and Khrushchev, and the Soviets were seen as retreating from a situation that they had started. Khrushchev's fall from power two years later was in part because of the Soviet Politburo's embarrassment at both Khrushchev's eventual concessions to the US and his ineptitude in precipitating the crisis.
FtSoA
15d ago
Point of order: Yes it is. Misapplication of metaphors is against the rules.
Anyway, "domino theory" worked.
Domino theory worked in establishing the Iron Curtain too.
I agree that, in general, people are bad at evaluating dominoes falling and the slipperiness of slopes on either side. But it's only the critics who can invoke the thought terminating cliches of "that's a logical fallacy" or "domino theory was false" without engaging with actual reality.
FtSoA
15d ago
That's what "rogue" means here. In a civil war, the ChiComms won, but didn't quite get back the full territory of China.
The exact history of who controlled what when isn't even relevant here, strictly speaking.
I love history trivia too, but both sides believe in One China what do you think you're arguing for here?
FtSoA
15d ago
Makes you wonder why we were willing to commit so much materiel to Afghanistan for so long if we care about maintaining military strength for larger enemies.
Come on. Please, just think for five seconds.
What did we actually have in Afghanistan? How much of it was remotely relevant to confronting "larger enemies"? Spoiler:
Keeping the U.S. locked in Afghanistan gave our enemies pretty solid ROI too, and we have virtually nought to show for it now.
Actually the Iranians in particular hated it. But also it was a very cheap military engagement as these things go.
Why were we concerned about Russia's military at all for such purposes? What threat did they pose to the U.S.'s interests outside of our need to reassure allies we're still top dog?
You can argue that the US should give up caring much about Europe and leave NATO and let Russia do whatever it wants, but that's not the world we actually live in.
Now we've got an ongoing commitment to sustain a conflict that isn't going to pay off much for us unless the Ukrainians pull off an increasingly unlikely win.
Technically, we've had a commitment for decades. But also even if Ukraine loses you're failing to consider the counterfactual where Putin just took over in weeks. That would be worse.
what exactly do we think we're doing here that's worth so many deaths.
Stopping Putin from conquering his neighbors at will? Preserving norms of liberalism and Western mutual support against aggression?
That doesn't really address the point that any invasion by Russia relies on sufficient manpower, and by absolute definition, with declining birth rates, their manpower will only decrease if they wait.
You're leaving out the side of equation where Ukraine is also facing demographic challenges. It's a symmetrical problem.
And for what it's worth, Russian influence seems more benevolent than US influence.
Why do so many countries desire NATO membership?
Seriously just go read about how the Europeans bordering Russia feel and stop pretending the US is the only actor in the world.
You could try to make the arguments of "cautious" and "beneficial" about China and I'd give you half credit. But about Russia?
FtSoA
15d ago
slippery slope arguments seem farfetched
Point of order: You have your geopolitical metaphors out of whack. You're looking for "domino theory."
I don’t know how you can observe the last 3 years of war and think Russia would roll over a NATO country
I don't know how you can observe the last 3 years of war and think Russia would roll over Ukraine, frankly. But they sure are trying!
So I don't trust Putin et al as totally rational actors for that very reason. They're bad at risk evals and self-awareness. Every day Russia's bogged down in Ukraine lessens the risk of further conflict. Had Russia taken Kyiv in weeks it would be a much worse situation.
But also you don't seem to be considering that Putin enjoys grayzone warfare and if Ukraine is removed as the primary focus for that, it would allow for more fuckery with other countries. Article 5 is tricky if you're fighting "separatists." It's not just about full invasions and take overs. Russia being able to better dominate neighbors is not a good outcome.
FtSoA
15d ago
Yes, there are certain munitions that are hard to replace fast enough, and both Ukraine and Israel have needed them.
Guess what though? In a shooting war with North Korea or China we're gonna need a lot more e.g. interceptors than what has been used so far, and so if anything we should be grateful for the stress testing of our stockpiles and supply chains.
But I think it's pretty obvious that the U.S. is less able to intervene in various conflicts than it would be in the world where the Ukraine war didn't pop off.
Well, yes. However, given that Russia, our #2 main rival, is having its military trashed pretty hard it's not like we aren't getting a pretty great ROI.
getting desperate enough to try and seize territory and resources to stave off disaster.
One would think that a rational person responding to the risk of population collapse would not start and maintain a bloody war killing off and maiming working-age males.
I'm sorry but I really can't take Peter Zeihan seriously at all. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 because it views the risk of Ukraine becoming aligned with the West economically, politically, and militarily to be too serious a threat to its interests of regional dominance.
FtSoA
15d ago
Well, can you? The closest we have seen to an attempt to get it over a country with a modern multi-layered air defense system was in fact Russia over Ukraine, and it failed.
Does Iran not count as having a modern multi-layered air defense system? They had S-300s, so second-tier Russian tech, which is mostly Ukraine had when the war started.
Of course, the question is to what extent the conclusion should be "Russia sucks" and to what extent it should be "this is a hard problem"
Russia does suck quite a lot. But it's not proven how well say the F-35 et al can do against the S-400 by either the US or Israel with top-tier SEAD. But since, somehow, the fucking Turks have a couple of batteries I'm guessing we have a pretty good idea of how to take 'em out at low risk.
but it's not like Ukraine can fly manned planes close to Russian-held territory either.
Does Ukraine have even a smidgen of the air combat power e.g. the US Marines have?
FtSoA
15d ago
Losing civil wars has consequences. Both China and Taiwan have a "one China policy" I do believe.
Taiwan is in reality a rogue province that exists only because the US could keep the ChiComms from finishing out the civil war. It's doomed to being reabsorbed, if present trends continue.
In contrast, Ukraine is a sovereign nation, which was recognized by all parties at the time, and is making things very nasty for the Russians.
In both the international law sense (kinda fake) as of 1971, and the force of arms sense (ultimately the main thing), Taiwan is not much of a country as would be made immediately clear as soon as the US stops giving it strategic ambiguity as a defense.
FtSoA
15d ago
It doesn't work like that. Threats don't have unlimited range and effect.
Did I claim they did?
Or are you misreading what I wrote?
The Russians can't likewise say 'end all arms support tomorrow and Starlink too or we'll nuke X, Y and Z'. The US would call that bluff.
Have you not observed various rightwingers very, very concerned about calling that bluff?
I'm not making up a guy to get mad at. Very real thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/04/ukraine-russia-nuclear-war-fears
https://time.com/7295939/russia-iran-israel-us-war-nuclear-catastrophe-trump-putin-khamenei/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/russia-ukraine-nuclear-war-putin-threat/672491/
It is not at all accepted that the US would trade New York for Kiev. Credibility is based on proximity of target, perceived value and the provocativeness of behaviour to be deterred. It depends on many factors.
No shit. Consider that you're trying to condescend to someone who already knows what you're trying to explain.
Wait, are you a non-American trying to lecture me about how threats and deterrence work? The very nerve.
The Arabs and Arabic didn't enter the Levant at scale until the Muslim conquest in the 7th century, right?
"Philistine" comes from Hebrew, originally. If you didn't know, Hebrew is also a Semitic language.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/Philistine
My understanding is that the genetics of Palestinian/Levantine Arabs and ethnic groups that predate the Muslim invasion differ, but there's a lot of admixture due to conversions to Islam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Palestinians
Long story short, "Palestinians" are not "Philistines" even though it's the same label.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines#:~:text=Philistines%20(Hebrew%3A%20%D7%A4%D6%B0%D6%BC%D7%9C%D6%B4%D7%A9%D6%B0%D7%81%D7%AA%D6%B4%D6%BC%D7%99%D7%9D%2C%20romanized,generally%20referred%20to%20as%20Philistia.
More options
Context Copy link